The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) has sparked controversy by referencing the infamous 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision to argue that Vice President Kamala Harris, along with Republican candidates Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy, are ineligible to run for president.
The Independent reported that the NFRA's interpretation of constitutional presidential eligibility stipulates that candidates must be born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, following an originalist view of the Constitution.
The NFRA's argument is based on a document adopted during their national convention, which took place between October 13 and 15 last year.
The document claims that several states and political parties have overlooked what they see as a fundamental requirement for presidential eligibility: that a candidate must be a "natural-born citizen."
According to the NFRA, this means being born on American soil to parents who are both U.S. citizens, a standard they claim is supported by historical Supreme Court rulings, including Dred Scott v. Sandford.
The Dred Scott decision, which declared that enslaved people could not be citizens and that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in federal territories, is a highly controversial ruling that has been widely condemned by historians and legal scholars.
Despite its infamy, the NFRA used this case to argue that Harris, Haley, and Ramaswamy do not meet the constitutional requirements to run for president, as their parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth.
This interpretation has led to significant debate, given that the Dred Scott ruling was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
The NFRA’s document emphasizes an originalist and strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution, similar to the judicial philosophies of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and current Justice Clarence Thomas.
The document argues that historical precedents and the views of these justices support their narrow interpretation of what constitutes a natural-born citizen.
This has led the NFRA to challenge the eligibility of not just Harris but also Haley and Ramaswamy, both of whom have appeared on Republican primary ballots.
The NFRA's platform includes former President Donald Trump and Ohio Senator JD Vance as their preferred candidates for the Republican nomination.
The document suggests that these candidates meet the NFRA's stringent criteria for natural-born citizenship. The group has formally endorsed Trump during their October convention, underscoring their commitment to promoting candidates who align with their constitutional interpretation.
Lawyer Andrew Fleischman brought attention to the NFRA's use of the Dred Scott decision by sharing the document on social media platform X (formerly Twitter).
Fleischman's post highlighted the controversial nature of the NFRA’s arguments, sparking discussions within the legal community about the implications of such an interpretation. Critics argue that relying on a discredited Supreme Court case like Dred Scott undermines the credibility of the NFRA’s position.
In addition to Dred Scott, the NFRA also cited the 1939 Supreme Court case Perkins v Elg, which defined the citizenship status of children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.
According to the NFRA, this case supports their view that presidential candidates must be born to two citizen parents. However, legal experts point out that Perkins v Elg actually recognized the citizenship of a child born in the U.S. to alien parents, which contradicts the NFRA's narrow interpretation.
The Dred Scott decision, one of the most notorious in American history, was a catalyst for the intensifying national debate over slavery leading up to the Civil War.
Dred Scott, an enslaved man, filed for his freedom in 1846 based on his residence in a free territory.
Although the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against him in 1857, his case had far-reaching consequences, further polarizing the nation and solidifying the divide between free and slave states.
The NFRA’s strict interpretation of natural-born citizenship would also exclude several early U.S. presidents, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, from eligibility.
This inconsistency has drawn criticism from historians and constitutional scholars, who argue that such a narrow reading of the Constitution does not align with the intent of the Founding Fathers.
